Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/229/2015

Devendra Kumar Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In person

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/229/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	13/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	04/11/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Devendra Kumar Goel, resident of House No.78 Sky Net Enclave, Loahgarh Patiyala Road, Zirakpur (Mohali), Punjab.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  The Chief Manager, Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, SCO 45-46-47, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

[2]  HDFC Bank Limited, formerly known as Centurion Bank of Punjab, SCF 69, Phase 3B1, Mohali (Punjab), through its Branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP NO.2	:	Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

                Devendra Kumar Goel (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) has filed this Consumer Complaint against Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited & Another (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Opposite Parties’ for the sake of brevity), alleging that in the year 2006, on the asking of the Branch Manager of OP No.2 Bank (formerly known as Centurion Bank of Punjab), the Complainant had taken one policy of Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Limited, on quarterly payments of Rs.12,500/- through ECS. It has been alleged that after taking the aforesaid policy, the market condition was not good till 2012 and it showed positive impact only in 2014. In August, 2014, while comparing the ULIP viz-a-viz the payments made, the Complainant noticed that the value was almost equal; whereas, the market had moved three times. Further, the premium had been increased twice without any information and confirmation from Rs.12,500/-to Rs.13,125/- and from Rs.13,125/- to Rs.13,781/-. Also, the ECS clearance permission was given to Centurion Bank of Punjab, which merged in HDFC Bank and the Bank had changed the ECS amount twice without information to the Complainant. It has been averred that the Complainant made objections with regard to deduction of mortality charges, bid offer charges and purchase sell spread charges which were not the part of the policy. A written Complaint to this effect was also made by the Complainant on 05.08.2014. In response to which, Opposite Party No.1 confirmed that all the charges were as per policy and were offered to return the extra amount with loss to Complainant’s account due to indexation. Failing to get any positive response, the Complainant also filed a Complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed. It has been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed before this Forum, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has stated that on the basis of proposal form and declaration made, a Policy bearing No. NLG1206092 was issued in the name of Complainant, commencing from 06.02.2006, for a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/-, and regular quarterly premium of Rs.12,500/- was to be paid till 06.02.2052. The Complainant has till date paid premium amount of Rs.4,46,343/-. On 18.09.2014, the Complainant had requested for partial withdrawal which was duly acknowledged and processed by the answering Opposite Party and an amount of Rs.3,94,078/- was transferred in his Bank Account through NEFT (Annexure R-1/E). Due to partial withdrawal, the sum assured in the policy was reduced to Rs.1,56,922/-. In the meantime, the answering Opposite Party was in receipt of Complaints from the Complainant regarding the charges incurred on his policy. The matter was got investigated, vide e-mail dated 13.08.2013 it was clarified to the Complainant that on account of some technical error, the premium got increased due to activation of indexation in the policy, which resulted in increase of sum assured from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.5,51,000/-. The Complainant was accordingly requested to give his confirmation if he wanted to terminate the indexation from the policy and for refund of extra premium deducted in furtherance of the same (Annexure R-1/F). Thereafter, the answering Opposite Party was in receipt of various e-mails from the Complainant on 20.08.2014, 20.09.2014 and 12.10.2014 wherein he complained of deduction of extra charges and charging of premium on indexation amount. The said e-mails were duly responded vide e-mails dated 21.08.2014, 10.10.2014 and 20.10.2014. Nonetheless, the Complainant vide his e-mail dated 21.10.2014 requested the answering Opposite Party not to process the refund of excess indexation amount (Annexure R-1/G colly). In the meantime, due to non-payment of regular premium, the policy was converted into paid up insurance on 07.12.2014 and within six months from said date the Complainant has the option to reinstate the policy subject to policy terms and conditions. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the payment was released through ECS as per the instructions of the Complainant. It has been denied that the answering Opposite Party had changed the ECS amount twice without information to the Complainant. It has been asserted that the Opposite Party No.2 has no role in the lapse of the policy. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

 

8.      We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.  The copy of the proposal form (Annexure R-1/A itself shows that the complainant affixed his signature on the same and had ticked on “unit linked”.  The complainant has nowhere denied that the said insurance policy is a unit linked policy whereby the investment is made through share market/speculative transactions. Pertinently, all unit linked policies are different from traditional insurance policies and are subject to different risk factors. In the said policy, the investment risk in investment portfolio is borne by the policy holder.

 

9.      A similar question arose for determination before the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, in Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 titled as “Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.”, decided on 23.4.2013. In that case, the dispute was regarding unit linked insurance policy and the claim under that policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making following observations :-

 

“The investment made by the petitioner/ complainant was to gain profit. Hence, it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/ complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission, Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/ complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

                                                Significantly, against the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission which was dismissed. Dis-satisfied with that order, the complainant filed a Revision Petition before the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission warranting interference. The matter relating to unit linked policies was also agitated in “Smt. Parmajit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited”, decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab on 4.7.2014 and “Metlife India Insurance Co. Vs. Gurjit Singh”, decided on 22.9.2014 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab and it was held that the complaint in respect of the claim under unit linked insurance policy is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business.

10.      In view of the law laid down in the above cited rulings, the present complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
11.      For the reasons recorded above, the instant consumer complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.      However, before parting with the order, we should make it clear that the dismissal of the complaint shall not mean that this Forum has disbelieved the allegations of the complainant.  Unfortunately, in view of law laid down in the rulings mentioned above, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to agitate the issues involved in this complaint before the appropriate Court/Forum.
13.      In terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industries (1995) 3 SCC 583, the Complainant may seek condonation of delay, if any, by moving an appropriate application before the appropriate Court/Forum, if so advised.
14.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

04^th November, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”